Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the bet-nobody-donated dept.

Politics 224

pickens writes "TorrentFreak reports that with 95 percent of the votes counted, it is clear that the Pirate Party will not enter the Swedish Parliament. The Party is currently stuck at about 1 percent of the total vote, nowhere near the 4 percent threshold it needs. This means that neither WikiLeaks nor The Pirate Bay will be hosted under Parliamentary immunity and the Party won't get the chance to legalize non-commercial file-sharing or criminalize 'copyright abuse' as they planned. 'The Swedish Pirate Party did its best election campaign ever. We had more media, more articles, more debates, more handed-out flyers than ever. Unfortunately, the wind was not in our sails this time, as it was with the European elections,' says party leader Rick Falkvinge. The party will now have to wait four more years before they have another shot at entering the Swedish Parliament. 'Each generation must reconquer democracy,' adds Falkvinge. 'Nobody said it was going to be an easy fight.'"

cancel ×

224 comments

Ye dogs! (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#33634986)


Swedish Pirate Party Fails To Enter Parliament

Arrrrrr!

The Parliament had a portcullis made from the finest iron! The swine poured boiling oil on my mates from the battlements! But the archers... blast ye archers! The air was a maelstrom of quills and death!

Arrrrrrr!

Re:Ye dogs! (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635158)

Swedish translation:

Errrrrr!

Zee Perleeement hed a purtcoollees mede-a frum zee feenest irun! Zee sveene-a puoored bueeling ooeel oon my metes frum zee bettlements! Boot zee erchers... blest ye-a erchers! Zee eur ves a meelstrum ooff qooeells und deet!

Errrrrrr! Bork Bork Bork!

If they want to be taken seriously (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635266)

Then they need to drop the childish name. "The Pirate Party" makes it sound like they are a bunch of rebellious kids flaunting how they like to break the law and get away with it.

If they want positive economic and legal reform, then they should adopt a name that is expressive of such reform, in a mature and positive light.

Maybe some thing like "the digital party" or "the free information party" or maybe pull a trick out of the other side's hat and choose something like "the information protection party" or "cultural preservation party."

I hope four years is enough time for them to grow up.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (2, Interesting)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635474)

My first thoughts as well. The Pirate Party is a stupid name. We have one in the UK but what's the point with a name that doesn't seem serious for a cause that is going to be hard to explain to the layman in the first place?

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636124)

Is it any more stupid than "Liberal", "Labour" or "Conservative"?

If a new party came along calling itself the "The Conservative Party" you'd probably come up with a few jokes. Their original name ("The Whigs") is even better.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636332)

It's becoming more clear each day that it is futile to try to discuss integrity policy with most people, who are interested instead in Paris Hilton or getting a three dollar tax reduction,

Failure to proceed beyond the Pirate Party name is a good indicator you are dealing with someone on whom you'd be wasting your time trying to go any further anyway.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (3, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635492)

That's an excellent idea. I know if a candidate was up for election where I am, and was a representative of the "Pirate" party, most people would think it was a joke (like the Rhinoceros party). The only votes they'd get would be for shits and giggles.

Conversely, if they represented the "Free Information" party or something that conveyed the same idea but was less clunky sounding, they'd be taken seriously. Hell, the Green party habitually gets taken seriously, and they're much for fringe, and have a sillier name.

I prefer this name... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636236)

I think normal people will have a hard time understanding Pirate Party politics anyway. Copying something is obviously wrong, explaining that it's a reaction to the RIAA's tactics, the way that people can buy and sell laws, and the way they want to monitor everything that's done online in the name of "copyright" is long and complicated.

I prefer to explain it as the party for people who are fed up with the weasels we normally get to vote for, and leave it at that. The Pirate Party is unlikely to ever win serious power but I want politicians to have one eye on those votes next time they sit down to lunch with the RIAA.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636462)

We had a group named like the one GP suggested in Finland during the last election, whose agenda pretty much coincided with that of the current Pirate Party of Finland. They had zero publicity and zero interest from the populace at large even with the people who could've run for parliament under their name. They never managed to collect enough supporters to get their party registered, and their candidates were forced to run under then-registered liberal party, which did not garner any more interest in the election. They decided to pull the plug from the party association, citing as a cause for discontinuing amongst other things "A poor choice of name".

In contrast, the Pirate Party of Finland is registered as a political party and has just surpassed the other small parties as the largest non-parliament party at 3000 members, which is only about 1400 members less than the Green party of Finland (currently as a government party). Currently we are preparing for the next parliamentary election here that's due next spring, and have over 60 candidates in electional districts that include over 75% of the population. (The Finnish parliament has 200 members). We have had our members participate in multiple televized talks, and the justice ministry has not only asked the party's advice for their suggestions on laws concerning the usage of unsecured wifi, but also heeded it when making their recommendations.

So no, the Pirate Party does not need to "grow up", it is the grown-up party that emerged from the ashes of the "serious" party. The name is radical, but so is the change that needs to happen if we are not to succumb to the tyrannical rule that the media cartels along with the other IP organizations are planning for us.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635630)

Then they need to drop the childish name. "The Pirate Party" makes it sound like they are a bunch of rebellious kids flaunting how they like to break the law and get away with it.

If they want positive economic and legal reform, then they should adopt a name that is expressive of such reform, in a mature and positive light.

Maybe some thing like "the digital party" or "the free information party" or maybe pull a trick out of the other side's hat and choose something like "the information protection party" or "cultural preservation party."

I hope four years is enough time for them to grow up.

I agree. I vote that they should change their name to "The Privateer Party" to represent their concern for the rights of private individuals, and their goal of getting the government to support pirate activity. Uh - I mean "support fair use". Yes, that's what I meant to say. Support fair use.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635650)

Privacy party or integrity party would be better imho since that is the true core of the pirate party. Regardless, I don't think there is anything wrong with calling yourself the pirate party. It gives a bit of extra publicity in the beginning and people will become used the name eventually and will think nothing of it.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635668)

If people aren't taking seriously a registered party with well documented ideas and proposals because of its name, I think it says more about the inability of the voters than about a bad naming choice. It's not the same, of course, but somewhat akin to saying rape wouldn't be that bad if we called it "surprise sex".

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (2, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635860)

Not that I entirely disagree with you, but...

You doubtlessly dismiss stuff all the time, because your first impression left you disinterested, or gave you cause for dismissal. Not just political parties, obviously, though likely those as well. A book you might have liked, but the title and cover just threw you, and you didn't pick it up. A TV show that might have been good, but the name and TV guide description left you thinking it'd suck. A charitable organization whose purpose you'd have supported, but for the dumb acronym and campy saccharine pitch they threw.

And even if you're somehow above all that (doubt it), most people aren't. Why would you expect it not to apply to a political party? People make snap judgments every day.

Now, you might say that politics is more important, and that people should apply a greater standard of examination than they do for entertainment. But I ask you: have you paid any attention to all those far-out third parties that doubtless populate your local politics? No. You'd dismiss most of them at first glance.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636448)

You know, you're right. It's always those dumb voters' fault when someone doesn't get elected.

No need at all to work on refining the message. Just shout it louder.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

AXE7540 (1267186) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635834)

I agree. They come off amateurish and juvenile. Their party represents issues that are extremely important for society at large in the coming century. To me their name puts them on even footing with a party dedicated to the legalization or marijuana. It is tough to take them seriously.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635956)

Bullshit. A name has to stand for something, it doesn't have to be "good" in any sense.

The green party is a good example. The were actually named simply "The Green" when they entered the german parliament. That's as silly a name as "Pirate Party". But people didn't care for the name, they cared for the program.

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636056)

A few years ago in Finland, an Information Society Party was being organized, but it did not go very far. Both the name and the idea were considered bland, as most other parties had something to say about the information society as well.

However, in the past two years or so, PP Finland has made great progress. It has been registered for the upcoming parliamentary election, and its number of members puts it in the same league with the smallest parties currently in parliament.

Besides the catchier name, it must be said that the political climate has changed as well. Finland used to be one of the least corrupt countries in the world, but the past year or so has revealed a huge amount of corruption in the leading parties, including the former PM himself. The idea of an integrity party and other alternatives are thus gaining interest. Of course, privacy and freedom of speech have also become increasingly important, for example due to our Internet censorship [lapsiporno.info] .

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

SuperSlug (799739) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636204)

How about the Privacy Party?

Re:If they want to be taken seriously (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636318)

The other problem is:

The party will now have to wait four more years before they have another shot at entering the Swedish Parliament.

Four years means all the college freshmen and sophomores who supported the current effort will be graduated and out in the real world before the next campaign. That is always a dire concern with this kind of organizing.

Re:Ye dogs! (2, Informative)

sepelester (794828) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635714)

Parlamentet hade ett fällgaller av finaste järn! Svinen hällde kokande olja på mina stridskamrater! Men bågskyttarna, era förbannade bågskyttar! Luften virvlade av pilspetsar och död!

Re:Ye dogs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636194)

What a coincidence, I also had trouble with my morning bowel movement!

Democracy? (-1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635000)

How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

If this was successful... whats next, the auto theft movement for "Rightfully freeing car from their owner for anyone to use."?

Re:Democracy? (0, Offtopic)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635034)

You're supposed to be subtler than that. If you're going to be this obvious you might as well post "TROLOLOLOLOL!"

Re:Democracy? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635060)

Well, as this demonstrates only 0.7% of Swedish people (the land of pirates) think copyright infringement should be lawful. The rest 99.3% think it should stay illegal.

Re:Democracy? (3, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635088)

Actually it demonstrates that most swedish media ignored the pirate party for the last few weeks before the election and instead focused on the "standard" election questions of jobs, healthcare and similar issues. Also, there's been a lot of anti-PP hollering from people claiming that anyone voting for the pirate party would be helping the sweden democrats into parliament. Essentially the pirate party and their issues have been completely ignored lately.

Re:Democracy? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635110)

Piraty Party itself ignored whole area of jobs, healthcare and so on. The actual important things that government should take care of, and what majority of people care about. For most people they are more important than the ability to get entertainment for free. That's how democracy works.

Re:Democracy? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635168)

Please don't go down this road, I've argued this way too many times, just go to their website [piratpartiet.se] and read up on things before making arguments that have been answered a thousand times before.

Re:Democracy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635146)

It absolutely does not. Only thing it suggests is that 99.3% of voters might have some other more pressing thing to vote for or against, were not familiar with pirate party or their candidates or, most likely, voted similarly to last time and the one before that. Most voters are not people who would vote for someone just because of one narrow point.

Re:Democracy? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635408)

Most voters are not people who would vote for someone just because of one narrow point.

You must be young?

Re:Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635848)

Rather: the rest 99.3% care more about other issues.

The lack of support for one side does not imply support for the opposite.

Re:Democracy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635044)

How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

I don't know, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Swedish pirate party. If you disagree, you probably don't have a fucking clue what the Swedish pirate party represents.

Have a nice day.

Re:Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635050)

How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

Would you care to elaborate a bit ? I hope you realize that file-sharing is not only about copyrighted materials.

Re:Democracy? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635402)

Would you care to elaborate a bit ? I hope you realize that file-sharing is not only about copyrighted materials.

True, it is just 99.3% about illegally sharing copyrighted materials. Strangely enough it aligns with the vote percentages.

Re:Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635522)

True, but what about taxes? Oh, sorry, i forgot, this kind of stealing is legalized, lol. Silly Me.

Re:Democracy? (3, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635056)

How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

If this was successful... whats next, the auto theft movement for "Rightfully freeing car from their owner for anyone to use."?

I'm going to need to to repeal some environmental laws on my property then. Ever since they passed a law prohibiting me from mining there, I've been unable to extract revenue from that resource.

In case you missed my snark, how can you steal revenue from an object that you yourself own? Once a work is released, it becomes public property. The only thing these people 'own' is the granted right to control the reproduction of that public property. That right is granted by the government. I fail to see how the government ceasing to grant that right would be theft.

Re:Democracy? (-1, Troll)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635072)

Isn't capitalism essentially getting everybody to agree that you can charge them more for a good or service than it cost you to make or provide? I.e., extortion by mutual consent? A form of extortion that runs rampant when corporations grow to be large and few enough to rig marketplaces and buy politicians - a commonplace scenario, today?

My point is that perspective is everything, and the definition of crime these days often encompasses only the viewpoint of those with the most money.

Re:Democracy? (0, Troll)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635138)

No no, capitalism is a magical thing which involves the passing around of pieces of paper being 'good' and the pieces of paper not being passed around being 'bad'.

So anything that stops you from passing around paper in their direction is 'bad'.

Re:Democracy? (0, Redundant)

icebrain (944107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635150)

My thoughts exactly.

It's one thing to be upset with the film/recording industries for claiming some "right" to inspect all internet traffic, or to secretly place monitoring software on peoples' computers without their knowledge, or for creating invasive DRM schemes that rely on phoning home to work. It's one thing to be angry about making it illegal to format-shift media for your own personal use, or "end-result" patents that only specify a result and not a specific method, or lawsuits filed with no proof that are just intended to extort money from innocent people.

It's quite another to demand some "right" to the works of others, to say that I have a perpetual right to copy, distribute, and use anything you make, for free, just because it exists. Are you going to say that any wood furniture I might make at home isn't mine, that it's freely available to anyone that can come get it? That things belong not to the people who put the time, effort, and their lives towards making them, but to whoever can take it?

I have a pet suspicion that most of these "I have a right to everything you do, for free" types haven't ever had to work to support themselves. It's real easy to sit back and claim that you have a right to everyone else's efforts (and they to yours) when your next meal depends on someone paying you for the work you did for them.

Re:Democracy? (1, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635216)

From Wikipedia:
--
        * Overall: ”Promoting global legislation to facilitate the emerging information society”
        * Copyright: “We claim that today’s copyright system is unbalanced” Hence their position that copyright laws cover only commercial uses of the copyrighted material
        * Patent: “Privatized monopolies are one of society’s worst enemies.” Hence their position that patents are obsolete and should be gradually destroyed. Regarding patents on pharmaceuticals, the Pirate Party proposes increasing government support for R&D to make up for loss of private R&D if there were no patent protection for innovation.
        * Personal Privacy: “All attempts to curtail these rights (e.g. privacy) must be questioned and met with powerful opposition.” Hence their position that anti-terror laws nullify due process and run the risk of being used as repressive tools.
--

There you go, now continue arguing.

Re:Democracy? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635640)

Copyrights have become now "life of the author + nearly a century" - please explain how this isn't the most rampant and vivid infringement of the deal ("sure - we, the public, will protect your work even though we don't have to; but after a decade or two it must go into public domain in return").

Re:Democracy? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635724)

It's quite another to demand some "right" to the works of others, to say that I have a perpetual right to copy, distribute, and use anything you make, for free, just because it exists. Are you going to say that any wood furniture I might make at home isn't mine, that it's freely available to anyone that can come get it? That things belong not to the people who put the time, effort, and their lives towards making them, but to whoever can take it?

The only problem here is that your wooden furniture is made from a resource that is expendable, requires transportation costs, and non-replicable (at least for the very near future.)

But let's say that you could make normal everyday things that could be freely copied... say a brownie. And let's say that you could create billions of copies of said food and transport it anywhere in the world in under a second for practically no cost... do you still demand payment for cooking that brownie? Or would you accept that cooking brownies probably isn't going to make you millions of dollars and your brownie might make some kid in a third world country happy for a while? Maybe we now have people who cook brownies out of kindness. Maybe these brownies have heart and care baked into them instead of being filled with only the most popular beats, err, ingredients, just to sell as many as you can copy yourself, for free.

I'm all for capitalism. I'm all for people making money. I'm all for people being successful. I'm for people being innovative in making money. However, I am not for people simply living off one invention the rest of their lives with no further effort. Artists, if they want to make money in their field, can go out and perform live acts for people. They can get out and do actual work instead of sitting in a golden throne room hitting a copy button and letting the government protect the income of their button pushing finger.

Re:Democracy? (1)

KIAaze (1034596) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635340)

slightly off-topic:
"If this was successful... whats next, the auto theft movement for "Rightfully freeing car from their owner for anyone to use."?"

Car sharing is actually a very good idea. :)

Not that people should be forced to share cars they own, but a more extended use of car sharing, PRT and public transports would be very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_sharing [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_automated_transport [wikipedia.org]

Re:Democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635688)

Funnily enough man...
I think, once automobiles become smart and cheap(and they will, mark my word) - government will buy them for everyone else to use them. Like public transport for example. Anyone can use public transport, can't they?

Re:Democracy? (4, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635706)

How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

If majority A wants to screw minority B, then democracy has got you covered! Well, to within a constitution, but constitutions have never covered all possible methods of screwing.

However, democracy doesn't protect against stupid decisions. Democracy is only as good as the people who use it.

(Mods, bring it on! I'm not even trolling, but it never stopped you before!)

Re:Democracy? (1, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636182)

How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

Don't know about democracy, but that's the essence of free market.

That isn't the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636206)

Digital products mean an *end to scarcity* of one aspect to all of our-humanity- lives. Keeping them artificially restricted and scarce is absolutely abhorrent from a future perspective.

Suppose we have a breakthrough where..whatever..solar panels get to be 75% efficient, and you can print them out for five bucks, so much so that near everyone can have abundant cheap energy. Are we supposed to keep paying the old "scarce resource" prices to the energy cartels when the power was made from coal? Just "because" the old monopoly was used to so much a "unit" kwh cost?

This is what has happened with digital products, they have maintained an "official" price for a digital product that reflects a per unit pricing model of a hard copy tangible product from last century, and this is NO LONGER THE ONLY OPTION. TECHNOLOGY GOT LOADS BETTER AND CHEAPER, but we DID NOT get price drops that parallel this tech advance.

THIS JUST FUCKING SUCKS!!!!

    How dare those assholes want to maintain that ridiculous price! How fucking dare they, plus use bribe money to corrupt the legal system to help maintain their buggywhip industry?

"Copyright" is supposed to be of general public benefit, for a limited time. Not only have they maintained a market fuckup high price that in no way is justified today, but they have extended copyright terms WAY WAY WAY too long. They violated the social construct, through coercion and BRIBERY. They also COLLUDE to maintain these high prices, and get away with it, despite that being allegedly "illegal", yet we see no "justice" efforts to rein them in on those artificial market busting high prices.

It is RIDICULOUS to charge serious money for a few megs of transfer. It's beyond a ripoff into actual harm to society in general.

IF they had dropped prices down radically, to reflect true costs of production on a "per copy" basis, these anti piracy shrill industry voices would be taken more seriously, but they did NOT. They corrupted the system.

Fuck 'em!

I neither download what I am not "supposed" to, NOR will I EVER pay their price gouging prices for digital "products". I do without, or use free and alternative products instead, or pay a REASONABLE fee for a digital product. NO, I am NOT going to drop ten bucks on your digital book, or music or movie, if it is in digital form, those are completely out to lunch ridiculous prices.

We have close to seven billion people on the planet now, most have access to the net in one form or another. If this isn't enough of a potential market to sell your digital crap CHEAP, and make your money from VOLUME SALES,and that "volume" part is to shut up those econo 101 assholes who always chime in on cost of production, then..well...people who can't see that, go to hell. Fucking luddite price gouging law corrupting socially stifling future destroying bastards.

Digital products get pirated because for the most part because they are offered "legally" at extreme ludicrously inflated prices, plus ridiculous DRM and other restrictions on the end user who wants to BUY your shit. Your shit isn't being hand scribed by monks, it isn't even being stamped on two cents worth of tangible plastic that needs to be shipped anymore, so there is NO REASON at all for these big players to want to charge what they are demanding.

So people reacted when they knew they were being screwed, they ignored the getting screwed part and made their own copies. If these digital product sellers had not been complete assholes about prices in the first place, when it became obvious how cheap they could sell copies and STILL MAKE A GOOD PROFIT, none of this shit would have happened in the first place. The digital sellers FUCKED UP AND RIPPED OFF HUMANITY FIRST. THEY BROKE OUR SOCIAL LAW FIRST!

NO, digital products do not deserve a 100,000% "per unit" markup. fuck.that.shit. We won't put up with that for any other product, there is no reason to put up with it for digital "products" either.

Re:Democracy? (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636392)

How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?

It isn't, but it IS directly related to whether or not big corporations can buy their own laws on a whim.

Cue the RIAA, DMCA, ACTA, etc., etc.

What the RIAA is hoping is that downloading a $1 file can end up with you losing what has become a basic human right (ie. Internet access).

Copyright laws are the foot governments are using to wedge open the door which allows them to spy on everybody. Every round of copyright laws gets more demonic. Seriously, how can a copyright law ("ACTA") be debated in total secrecy? What's to hide...?

Voting Pirate is a sensible option if ask me.

Re:Democracy? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636488)

PS: Copyright laws also have the potential to waste an awful lot of taxpayer money if the RIAA gets its way. Money spent in protecting an obsolete business model isn't money well spent, it's an unwinnable 'war' anyway....

Oh, the Pirate Party (2, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635052)

When the real news is that the swastica-waving "democratic nationalist" party Sverigedemokraterna got a seat in the parliament.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635112)

They're Hindus?

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

darkstar949 (697933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635282)

Or Buddhist for that matter, they use a manji (i.e. swastika) to make temples on maps in Japan.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635806)

Doesn't it spin the other direction, though?

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

Destoo (530123) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636208)

It does.
There's a theory the nazis used the reverse symbol to "use" the "accumulated" power of it. Just like an inversed cross is as strong a symbol as the cross is.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (2, Interesting)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636440)

Sort of. You are referring to 'gyaku manji', or the reversed one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika [wikipedia.org]

"In Japan, the swastika is called manji. Since the Middle Ages, it has been used as a coat of arms by various Japanese families. On Japanese maps, a swastika (left-facing and horizontal) is used to mark the location of a Buddhist temple. The right-facing manji is often referred to as the gyaku manji (, lit. 'reverse manji'), and can also be called kagi jji (literally 'hook cross')."

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (2, Interesting)

j1976 (618621) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635126)

Actually they got 20 seats and a tipping point position, where they in theory could get power to deseat the sitting conservative/liberal government.

But I agree with the point... the interesting (and scary) part about the election is that I can expect that one in every twenty people I meet down town actually voted for a nazi party.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635180)

Ya, that kinda is a more significant issue.
humans make me sad sometimes.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (0, Redundant)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635374)

They got 20 seats, not 20%. Voter turnout was less than 100%. The number is far less than one in twenty.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635484)

Redo your math

one in twenty != 20%

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635594)

They got 20 seats out of 349, or 5.7% of the votes. 5% is five in a hundred or one in twenty.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (3, Informative)

ardiri (245358) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635134)

they got 20 seats
http://www.val.se/val/val2010/valnatt/R/rike/index.html

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (2, Insightful)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635140)

Is it "swastica-waving", though, or are they "just" racist?

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635314)

Just good old racist. They are a bunch of rowdy idiots, trying to fool everyone by cleaning up their act and holding back.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635334)

Just good old racist. They are a bunch of rowdy idiots, trying to fool everyone by cleaning up their act and holding back.

So its the Swedish Tea Party. Nice.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635330)

I tried to find a photo of one of their people standing before a swastika, but for some reason Chromium doesn't allow pasting into a Slashdot submission form, so it's not much use (I'm not typing it in by hand). But if you google "about vlaams belang and sweden democrats", you should find it in an article on Little Green Footballs (an "anti-jihadist" site) saying these guys aren't good to be associated with.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635478)

Keyboard shortcut for pasting.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635516)

Posting AC as this is a really infected issue to be connected to.

Sverigedemokraterna is not racists nor swastica waving. They are opposed, among other things, to the current immigration laws. In such a politically correct country as Sweden this defaults to racism. However the party has its roots, but has since been reformed, in the white supremacy movement, including some of its current high ranking officials.

That aside, they do attract racist people and new-nazis.

This is a semi personal analysis. But media, established political parties and swedes in general turned the blind side to the issue that they do infact raise. Sweden has a high immigration quota but has failed miserably to incorporate the new-swedes in its social and in its work structure. Combined with the fact that they were locked out from 99% of the debates left some swedes (read mostly young males) with the option of voting for the underdog that had radical views as opposed to voting for their ideological views.

This is a very uncomfortable situation for the politically correct swedes as they are now forced to deal openly with the subject.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635556)

Orginally they were either old nazis or people who also were in racist organisations such as "Bevara Sverige Svenskt" (Preserve Sweden Swedish). I mean, one member held a speech wearing a WW2 era nazi uniform in the mid nineties. They've cleaned up now though, in the polished turd kind of way.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635618)

Is it "swastica-waving", though, or are they "just" racist?

Depends on which point in time you look at. Here's 1996: http://expo.se/slideshows/slide_5/slideshow_44.html [expo.se] (by the way, uniformsslut means "no more uniforms". What did you think?). In my opinion, they got into the parliment not so much for being racist, but rather for promising a change in swedish immigration politics, which objectively hasn't been working all that well. There's a lot of segregation, immigrants are ahead in crime statistics, and none of the other parties have been willing to even talk about these problems. The solution is obviously not Sverigedemokraternas "throw them all out"-politics, but it's not "sticking your head in the sand and pretend there's no problem" either. Hopefully the other parties end up bullying Sverigedemokraterna out of any influence, while at the same time focusing on real solutions, so that 5.7% of the voters don't feel the need to vote for a racist party with nazi roots in 4 years.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635722)

One of them actually carved in a swastica on his own forehead, and claimed he was attacked by two black men, but the scam was exposed by the Coroner just before the election.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635968)

Is it "swastica-waving", though, or are they "just" racist?

Nobody who isn't retarded would wave a swastika and still believe they had a shot at getting elected. But you be the judge:
But they were born out of the first wave of neo-Nazism in Sweden in the 1980's. Their original program consisted of (among other things):
A ban on all immigration except for people from 'ethnically related nations'
Government-sponsored repatriation of people of non-Nordic ethnicity.
Banning all international adoptions, and abortion, as well as increased government support, tax breaks and such for families of the 'right' ethnicity.

Obviously they would never get elected on that program, so in the past 20 years they've successively toned it down to try to gain an air of respectability. But it's the same party and the same people, many of whom once were unabashed swastika-wearers. (And like all good fascists, they're really into 'law and order', which means cracking down on 'immigrant crime', yet have a very disproportionate number of criminally-convicted members.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1, Troll)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635382)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats [wikipedia.org]

They're practically the same as the conservatives in the States. You poor, poor souls.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636108)

That would be bad enough, but they actually formed out of various clearly neo-nazi, white pride organizations that decided to get serious about getting into the parliament. Yes, they have officially condemned the more extreme views but a huge amount of the members is made up of people who were swastica waving skinheads in the 90s and their hangarounds.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636444)

The old labels have no meaning any more, and one need to consider their actions and words very closely to see their true "label".

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635698)

They are hardly swastica-waving. They are slightly more covert about their racism.

Re:Oh, the Pirate Party (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635950)

They stopped waving swasticas in public in the late 90s when they decided to get serious about getting seats in the parliament. The party is made up of a mixture of former members of various neo-nazi, white pride organizations such as BSS (Bevara Sverige Svenskt - Keep Sweden Swedish), Nordiska Rikspartiet (The nordic state party), Framstegspartiet (The progression party) and Sverigepartiet (The Sweden party) though.

Still a win (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635066)

Politicians in other parties will be thinking about that 1% next time they sit down to dinner with the RIAA.

Re:Still a win (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635096)

Politicians in other parties will be thinking about that 1% next time they sit down to dinner with the RIAA.

That's not the real value.

Politicians will be thinking about the evolution of that 1% in four years, when they prepare their programs for the elections.

The final objective is not to get majority and change the laws, it's to force other parties to include those changes to win those few extra votes.

Kind of misleading (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635214)

While the article is correct, the swedish green party, miljöpartiet, has officially supported decriminalisation of noncommercial filesharing since just after the EU election. I would guess that most of those who voted for the pirate party in the EU election voted for the greens now, since there was no doubt that they would get in.

In fact, the greens were very successful in this election so despite the pirate party's failure, 7% of the riksdag actually supports legal file sharing which is not a bad situation in any way for the pirate movement.

As expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635236)

I voted for the Pirate Party in the EU elections. But even then, when it got some seven percent of the votes did I think it would make it to parliament in the national elections. And while I agree with a lot of their views, their focus seemed all too narrow for getting my vote this time. Especially when a party like the pseudo-nazi Sweden Democrats got in.

Shocker ! (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635252)

Seriously, did anyone really think such a thing would make it through ?
It's the "pirate" party for crying out loud, in what universe is the word "pirate" not considered a villainous term ?
Romanticized, yes. Get's the girl at the end of a single Disney movie, no.

Re:Shocker ! (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635358)

They got 7,1% of the vote for the EU parliament last year. Has there been a tenfold increase in how villainous a term "pirate" is in the last year?

Re:Shocker ! (1)

ZFox (860519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636436)

Get's the girl at the end of a single Disney movie, no.

He did get to spend a rum-filled night with her on the beach, though.

Let's say, hypothetically, you're not pro-piracy.. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635306)

...but you're anti- million-dollar lawsuits over a few dozen MP3s illicitly traded, fed-up at the viciously draconian DRM schemes being pushed on consumers, and frankly downright concerned that your children could cause you to lose your Internet access and your house over a file transfer.

Is it seriously that farfetched to consider voting for a party this extreme when there's absolutely nothing in the middle of the spectrum as far as protecting consumers and citizens from runaway litigation and settlement schemes?

I absolutely believe that you should pay for software if you want to use it and the author is selling it, I've actually started selling some myself. But who else is out there to rein in the gross overreach of the copyright lobby or seriously fighting for privacy rights at that level?

Re:Let's say, hypothetically, you're not pro-pirac (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635878)

I must say, it's a relief seeing your post. I've been a little concerned that the moderate middle ground on the copyright issue may be shrinking. Actions by the Big Publishers have been polarising the issue somewhat, which is not entirely fair, since copyright is actually quite a bit bigger than them. I've been seeing more people here in favour of abandoning copyright, or almost as bad, abandoning copyright for non-commercial purposes (which is where 99% of the violations come from).

We desperately need solutions, but nuking copyright just creates more problems. What we really need is a tighter corporate leash. That would solve not only the copyright problems, but a fair few other problems as well. I too would vote for a party who would be in favour of reasonably scaling copyright and copyright enforcement back, but I find the pirate party's stance simply unacceptable.

Re:Let's say, hypothetically, you're not pro-pirac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635982)

Nothing ever gets changed politically by people who are being reasonable. To end up in the middle, you have to pull as strong in your direction as your opponents pull in the other direction. Sad but true.

We Are Now Ready (2, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635328)

Society is still not ready for this progressive thinking mentality.

The people currently working in the government grew in a time when media (or intelectual property as some want to call it) was a scare resource, thus they do not understand the current situation.

We need to wait some time, maybe one generation, when politicians, leaders, and in general other decision makers (e.g. grown people with some power) are individuals who grown understanding the nature of media; how it can be shared in a costless manner, and the advantage that such thing provides. We are still not ready, but we are getting there.

Re:We Are Now Ready (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635576)

Probably true, but I think the bigger problem is what I've stated before about the Pirate Party. They don't project a clear stance on any major issues not directly related to copyright. I'm all for the changes they propose, but I think it's a bit "excessive" to vote in a whole new political party just to address that, when there would be so many other unknowns about which way they'd vote on anything from foreign economic policy to education to war, to ??

Re:We Are Now Ready (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635916)

We're also not ready for a post-copyright world.

Ask me again when successful artists using P2P distribution exclusively are the norm instead of a vanishing exception.

Re:We Are Now Ready (2, Insightful)

krelian (525362) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636154)

The people currently working in the government grew in a time when media (or intelectual property as some want to call it) was a scare resource, thus they do not understand the current situation.

In a way Media is still a scarce resource. Media doesn't appear out of thin air and the actual cost of developing Media are much higher now then they used too. I am not even sure that the price (to the end user) of media has even caught on with inflation. The only thing that is cheaper these days is distribution of the media.

As much as I don't like it personally, I think the correct way to treat most Media is as a service and not a product. If a phone call costs almost nothing to t-mobile it does not mean that it's somehow right or fair to not pay them for the service. In order to be able to offer the service in the first place they had to put a lot of money in to create the infrastructure. If companies are not allowed to recuperate their costs they will simply stop investing.

We are NOT ready. NOT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636292)

arrrrgh invariably I had to have one spelling error.

The title of my previous post should read we are NOT ready :(

Best election campaign ever? (5, Interesting)

narooze (845310) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635444)

"The Swedish Pirate Party did its best election campaign ever. We had more media, more articles, more debates, more handed-out flyers than ever"

How does he figure that? I (a Swede) haven't heard or seen anything from them since the election for the European parliament. I think it would be more correct to call it their worst election campaign ever.

Re:Best election campaign ever? (1)

lordholm (649770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636226)

They where really annoying at various forums on the Internet (like the ones at the major newspapers), spreading of-topic propaganda as soon as anything of interest was discussed.

The people have spoken (1)

AbbeyRoad (198852) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635546)

So the truth finally comes out: now one gives a flying fluck.

Not even surprising enough to warrant a sarcastic choke on the next sip of my coffee.

-paul

Sign of the times (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635602)

The swedish Democrats (read anti-immigrant party) did make it in. Intresting prediction by Gerald Celente in a dutch free newspaper today. "Hate of Islam can no longer be stopped". When even Sweden starts going natiolistic, you know things are bad.

So, freedom of information. NO.

No to immigrants. Yes.

Sad. And yes there are issues, but the problem goes deeper then just Islam, you can see that with the Roma in France. There is a clash of cultures going on and a ruling elite that is totally in capable of dealing or even acknowledging this.

The same free newspaper ran a story last week on the Roma being deported. It said the troubles started after Roma attacked a police station after police has shot one of them. Then it goes on to make the claim that this decision was totally wrong and ill thought out... NO, not the decision of the Roma to attack a police station in a country were there reputation already sucks, no, it is the FRENCH reaction to one of its police stations being attack in protest of the legal shooting of a criminal by foreigners that gets attacked.

Talk about NOT getting the point.

And no I am NOT going off-topic. The same applies to copyright infringement. The ruling elite would LOVE to make out that this is people stealing music from hard working artists who are begging for bread. What it is REALLY about is a mother scrubbing floors for a living putting a song performed by a multi-biljonair behind a video of child and uploading it on youtube to share with friends. If the copyright extortion industry had its way, we would have to pay a performance fee for singing "Happy birthday" and pay for having our earphones on to loud or if we whistle a tune. Any tune because every country has a collection agency that collects for every song regardless of whether the author wants it to be collected.

Times are changing. The internet has changed the rules of copying and mass imigration has changed the rules about cultures meeting. And either we act on those changes or ignore them until things blow up. Remember the last time the ruling elite were unable to deal with a changing reality? I think it was about 1932 that it came to a boil. Read up on that era. There is plenty writting about the years after but far less about before. You can't stop it when it has happened, so how about learning from history how to stop it happening again?

Copyright infringement is performed by millions, perhaps when so many do it, you just got to accept it as reality rather then try to protect the out of date business practices of a few filthy rich.

If you look at the politicians who are pro-copyright, pro-internet filtering and pro-immigration, you notice that they all try to claim that their methods are working have worked for decades and any problems are just radical extremists. And if you are not careful a real radical will stand up and claim to have the answer and be listened to.

What do they really want to do about filesharing? Create a war on filesharing? That went so well with the war on drugs. Put every filesharer in jail? Give every kid a criminal record for sharing Celine Dion? No, that is impossible especially since the police is undergoing budget cuts throughout Europe and has plenty of calls on its man power for the war on drugs and war on terror.

And if you ask the current elite WHY they side with the copyright industry, you often don't get any better answer then 'eh, because that is how it always was'. No, copyright is a new thing. It was changed because of new tech, so why not change it again because of even newer tech?

Either politicians change with the changing world, or they find themselves changed. Right now all parties in sweden have declared they won't work the new Swedish Democrats. Sure sure, we heard that before. Next election they will become far far larger because the current elite won't actually change anything and then they will have to work with them. And still they won't change a thing.

The Roma were kicked out of France. It is to late to stop the revolution, it has already happened. 10 years ago, this would have been unthinkable. So the ruling elite didn't think about it.

Argh, forgot the final end (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635814)

And the revolution has already happened with music. In the times of Napster only a fraction of the population had access to reliable internet with acceptable speeds. The music industry did NOT adapt to the changing times and instead sued and then sat back congratualiting themselves on their achievement... and the times kept changing and now an entire generation has grown up were downloading is the norm.

And NO, iTunes is NOT the counter revolution. Selling the songs for the same price but without the production and distribution costs is just cynical money grabbing rather then the capitalists "passing savings on to the customer".

The elite thought they could stop the changing times and didn't. Nothing new there. Trying to change back the clock is far to late. The music industry should have switched business models pre-2000. Like the dutch Free Record Store wanted to do. Remove CD's, instead have a computer with all music loaded on it and burn or upload it to a MP3 player on demand for a low fee. The advantages are HUGE. Every song on sale in the smallest retail location. No surplus stock, no damaged stock, no theft, full listening of songs in the store without wear and tear. If you know the rental costs of a highstreet location, being able to skip on endless racks of CD's would save a fortune. Lower the costs of music and increase the earning for everyone involved while giving customer the service they want and all the music ever recorded... what did the music industry say? No, and if you try it, we will sue you.

The revolution in France wasn't about telling people going hungry to eat cake. It was about an elite totally unable to grasp the reality of the day.

It must be something in the champagne the elite drink that makes them blind.

Re:Argh, forgot the final end (1)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636422)

You've made some interesting points, but I'm not convinced that they're fully thought-through. The current elite side with the copyright industry because that's where the money is--not because it's comfortable. The original copyright term was 7 years, plus 7 more if extended. The idea was that this is enough time to profit off an idea before opening it up to innovation. So copyright holders makes a ton of money and rather than wanting to actually work to continue their profit by creating new things, they take their favorite politicians out to dinner, cruises, etc. There is no "that's how it always was" here, but instead an active pressure from those with money.

Re:Sign of the times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636168)

"The Roma were kicked out of France. It is to late to stop the revolution, it has already happened. 10 years ago, this would have been unthinkable. So the ruling elite didn't think about it."

Yes to late for those Roma already kicked out (though, since they are EU citizens they can just come back if they feel like it, so the expulsions are rather pointless), but it is in any case an illegal action by the French government by article 2 of the treaty of Lisbon. Further, the EU can by article 7 impose sanctions for not maintaining or breaching the spirit of article 2.

This will happen in one way or the other, though at the moment it seems to be in the process of being sent to the EU court in Luxembourg.

In any case, the French government have blatantly broken article 2 of the treaty and will most certainly be punished for it. If the court decide to make an example of France, except high penalties and that the court makes an example out of the French government, preventing further violations of the treaty.

Dump The Friggin Name Overboard (1, Insightful)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635994)

It's dead in the water I'm afraid.

It may have been funny in the Swedish dorms, but it's holding you back and globally now.

Time to get serious. And this from a pirate. So have a burial at sea, make it walk the plank, whatever. But jettison the moniker.

- js.

Anonymous Swede (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636032)

Take this from a Swede from Stockholm:
I haven't noticed or heard anything from our about the Pirate Party in the streets or in the media. Except a couple of months ago when there was some discussion regarding the PPs view on child pornography.

Just a few days me and my friends discussed this, as its peculiar that during the European Parlimentary election there was a lot more buzz about the PP.

My guess is a that the xenophobic Sverigedemokraterna (Swedish democrats party) has taken a lot of the focus from PP as the "new" party with a chance getting into the parliament.

Not with these people doing the fighting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636374)

"Nobody said it was going to be an easy fight.""

And not with this group doing the fighting. Its little more than idiotic to have a single party, with a single set of issues, trying to win this.

Chile for example has become the first country in the world with net neutrality, and it has no pirate party, or single issue party.

This reminds me of the "further left" doing everything they can to weaken the Democratic party, becausw eif they lose then...

3. Profit!

or something its never very clear.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...